Thanks for the link. I am where the book can't get to me right now but will order one so when I get home I will have it. It does seem like a very interesting time in history. A person would have to remember, anything written is likely to have a certain slant towards one direction of the other. There are very few unbiased writers in those days or today.

I don't know a lot about Hoover or FDR. What I think I know comes from sites that lean towards Austrian economics so they often frame the situation of the time in a different light than what most mainstream economist's might.

My general overall picture of the two men is that while Hoover in most books is looked at like he did nothing for the economy while FDR came along and saved the day with all sorts of government programs, that is not really the case. From what little I have read and gathered is that Hoover pretty much spent like a drunken sailor running up the national debt and lamented that in the end all the money they threw at the economy provided little help. Then FDR came along and promised all sorts of things that when he actually got in office did little of what he promised and instead pretty much continued and expanded Hoovers programs. Obama is an FDR II if my picture is anywhere near correct. In many respects FDR's programs also had limited effect and the depression more or less just took time to wear off and for things to get better and then the war came along causing a lot of activity and forced austerity causing savings and eventually pent up demand after the war.

That is my overall picture of the time. It may well be flawed. I have not really studied the period, that is just the picture I have developed while running across bits and pieces of information here and there.

I have no idea what I would have thought back then. At that time the US produced nearly everything they needed. Plenty of oil, big on manufacturing, etc. I think it could probably have survived pretty well with a protectionists policy. But such a policy comes at the favor of some while at the disadvantage of others. That is the problem with government programs, they create winners and loser's according to what those in power think ought to be winners and loser's rather than let the market decide. Protecting the farmers meant that consumers would pay higher prices for food. Protecting the auto workers or other unions means that the consumer subsidizes these groups. When I was young or middle age, I have no idea what I would have thought or thought back in the 50's had I been an adult then. If I listened at all I probably would have found slick politicians words to be compelling.

It is only later in life that I have taken an interest in such matters. I have come to the conclusion that when government gets involved in anything they 1. create winners and loser's in whatever they do (zero sum game) 2. they ALWAYS introduce inefficiencies and wastefulness (that sometimes more than completely offsets any advantage the benefited group is receiving) 3. They ALWAYS create a huge bureaucracy with an army of manpower that sacrifices the progress of private enterprise through parasitic regulations and excess bureaucratic labor costs that put a drain on the productive portion of the economy

So 1. I might have voted differently when I was younger than I would now and 2. I mostly was ambivalent about the issues at that stage in my life and 3. I probably would have believed the politicians when they said they would do something where now I know how to tell when they are lying (their mouth moves).

Some interesting quotes you have. Thanks

John